Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title "Stylos" is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth."

Thursday, January 29, 2015

“So David went out and brought up the ark of God …
with gladness” (2 Samuel 6:12b).

“And David danced before the Lord with all his
might …” (v. 14).

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up
the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet” (v. 15).

We are
to come before the Lord with gladness, with exuberance, and even with loud and
clear voices.

Does
this passage validate dancing, whether highly choreographed “interpretive
movement,” so-called “liturgical dance,” or spontaneous dancing? “It’s right there in the 2 Samuel 6,” someone
might say, “David did it.” But we must
remember that the New Testament continues and completes God’s story, including
God’s requirements in worship. The New
Testament nowhere commands dancing.
Notice too that this passage also describes sacrifices and religious
objects (the ark itself), but we recognize that such physical things have
passed away. Now, we worship in Spirit
and in Truth (John 4:24).

We
must look to a principle here. And the
principle is coming with joy and gladness and exuberance before the Lord.

One
commentator noted how in this single chapter with its description of Uzzah’s
error and David’s dancing, “fearfulness
and gladness are held together. In
Yahweh’s presence you should shudder and dance!” He adds, “a fearful sense of God’s holiness
does not suppress joy but stimulates it” (Dale Ralph Davis, 2 Samuel:
Looking on the Heart, p. 66).

It has
been noted before that there is one kind of joy expressed at a football game
when your team scores the winning touchdown.
And there is another when you attend a formal graduation ceremony, a
wedding, a monarch’s coronation, or a Presidential inauguration. I want to suggest that the joy we express in
new covenant worship is more like the second than the first, but it is no less
deep and profound. We are to have a deep
and abiding gladness in God, so that our hearts dance before him.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

This week I’ve been reading Timothy Michael Law’s When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the
Christian Bible (Oxford Press, 2013).

In this work, Law makes reference to numerous text and
translation issues relating to various Scriptural passages. In general, he wants to challenge the
privileged place of the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament in the
Christian tradition and to argue for the validity of the LXX.

One interesting passage he discusses is Psalm 8:5. Law notes:

The Greek translator makes a
theological decision that will later impact Christian interpretation, using “angels”
instead of “God” in verse 6 (verse 6 in the Septuagint). The Hebrew Bible, speaking of human beings,
reads: “Yet you have made them a little
lower than God . . .” The Septuagint
translator was perhaps bothered by the suggestion that human beings were only “a
little lower” than God, so he changed the passage to read: “You diminished him a little in comparison with
the angels” (pp. 55-56).

Though the passage was well known to me, I was not fully aware of
the text and translation issues within it.

The Text:

A quick check of the text does indeed reveal that the Hebrew
MT reads elohim, which is typically
translated in the OT as “God,” though the form is technically a masculine
plural, so it might be rendered “gods” or perhaps even “heavenly beings.”

The LXX does indeed read angeloi
or “angels.” The LXX is also clearly the
version cited in the only NT passage—Hebrews 2:7— where the OT passage is
directly quoted.

Reformation Era Translations:

The King James Version, which normally follows the Hebrew MT,
does not render elohim as “God” but
as “angels.” Compare:

KJV Psalm 8:5 For thou hast
made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and
honour.

What
are we to make of this decision? Did the
KJV translators here act like many modern OT editors and translators and choose
to follow the LXX rather than the Hebrew?

Such a
choice was not unanimous among the Reformation era translations. The Geneva Bible sticks with the Hebrew:

Geneva Bible Psalm 8:5: For thou has made him a little lower than
God, and crowned him with glory and worship.

Likewise,
the 1590 Hungarian translation of Karoli Gaspar also follows the Hebrew:

The question one
might pose is why the KJV translators who are usually so careful to follow the
Hebrew original seemingly depart from it here.

Modern Translations:

The NASB follows the Hebrew Masoretic text in translating “God”:

NASB Psalm 8:5 Yet Thou hast
made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty!

The NKJV
follows the KJV’s lead in translating “angels”:

NKJV Psalm 8:5 For You have
made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory
and honor.

The
NIV departs from both by translating “heavenly beings”:

NIV Psalm 8:5 You made him a
little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

The
ESV follows the same route as the NIV by using “heavenly beings”:

ESV Psalm 8:5 Yet you have made him a little lower thanthe heavenly beingsand crowned him withglory and honor.

The ESV also adds a note
explaining: “Psalm 8:5 Or than God;
Septuagint than the angels.”

Back to the KJV
translation choice:

I think the KJV translation choice at Psalm 8:5 can
be understood as an attempt to produce an ecclesiastical translation which
harmonizes the OT passage with its NT citation of this verse at Hebrews 2:7,
which in Greek reads angeloi and is rendered in English as “angels.”

The Geneva Bible uses “angels” at Hebrews 2:7 and
the Karoli angelok (angels). The modern English translations (NASB; NIV;
ESV; NKJV) all use “angels” at Hebrews 2:7 also.

The KJV (and the NKJV which follows it) is the only
translation that harmonizes the two passages (Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7) by
making the reference identical. Again,
this would be a place where one might say that the KJV is driven more by an
ecclesiastical concern than a purely academic one. The point is not that the KJV translators
were following the Septuagint at Psalm 8:5 but that they were following the
Greek of Hebrews 2:7. That is, they were
guiding the reader to naturally understand the harmony between Psalm 8:5 and
Hebrews 2:7 as part of the harmony of the Christian Scripture.

Aside: My limited
experience in reading Evans has shown him to be one of those evangelical
scholars whose commitment to the academy often leads him to take uneven
positions. For examples: On one hand, he contributed an excellent
chapter to the book How God Became Jesus
(Zondervan, 2014) proving the historicity of the burial of Jesus, contra the historical skepticism of Bart Ehrman. On
the other hand, he contributed an article to the book Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in
Dialogue: The Reliability of the New
Testament (Fortress Press, 2011) in
which he conjectured that Matthew 27:51b-53 (the account of some dead being
raised at the crucifixion of Jesus) was not authentic despite the fact that the
text is completely undisputed in transmission!

The claim put forward by Evans here is that this yet unpublished
fragment may date to 80 AD (a spoken claim Evans makes in the video) or 90 AD
(a written claim made in the article).
If substantiated, what would be the significance of this? It would prove the early existence of the
Gospel of Mark (but most modern scholars, even skeptical ones like Bart Ehrman,
already date Mark to the mid-60s AD).
Evans also claims that such a find gets scholars back to the original
“autograph” of Scripture (at least of the Gospel of Mark).

I want:

(1) To offer some
general background information on NT papyri;

(2) To clarify some
confusion about the significance of the papyri;

(3) To offer some
reasons why this find is probably not as significant as some might suppose.

First: I want to offer some background on the papyri:

What is a papyrus (plural papyri)? This term refers to writing material that was
made from a plant which grows along the Nile in Egypt. A NT papyrus is a piece of papyrus on which a
part of the text of the NT is written. The
earliest NT texts and fragments of texts which we have are written on
papyri. The material itself dates the
text as very ancient. From about the fourth
century AD till the fifteenth century AD, the NT was written on vellum (animal
skins). From then till now it has been
written on paper. And we are currently
undergoing another technological revolution in which texts are being written
digitally. Cf.:

c. 50-350 AD

papyrus

c. 350-1500 AD

vellum

c. 1500-2000 AD

paper

c. 2000-present

paper/digital

According to Robert Hull, Jr. the first NT papyrus was
discovered by Tischendorf in 1868, and four more were published by 1898 (The Story of the NT Text, p. 110). We need to pause here to observe that the
rise of the modern critical text in the nineteenth century did not come about
because of papyri discoveries. Lachman
in 1831 and WH in 1881 did not base their modern critical Greek NTs on papyri
finds. The modern critical text was
based on the uncials, not the papyri. The
notion that the modern critical text came about as the result of papyri finds is
a misconception that apologist James White, among others, seems to perpetuate.

The major papyri finds came in the twentieth century, not the
nineteenth century. By 1930, 42 NT papyri
had been published (Hull, p. 111). Eldon
Jay Epp has called 1930-1980 “the period of the papyri” (The NT and Its Modern Interpreters, p. 83). The two most notable finds in this period were:

The Chester Beatty Papyri in the early 1930s [which included
p46, the oldest copy of the Pauline writings, (dated to c. 200 AD). The beginning pages are missing. Its order:
Romans (from 5:17, opening is missing), Hebrews, 1-2 Corinthians,
Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The final pages are missing and their content
is uncertain].

And the Bodmer Papyri in the early 1950s [which included p66
(dated c. 200 AD), one of the oldest witnesses to John and the oldest not to
contain the PA; p72 (dated to the third century), the oldest witness to 1-2
Peter and Jude; and p75 (dated c. 200), the oldest witness to Luke and one of
the oldest to John—it was purchased by the Vatican in 2006].

Notice how the numbering goes up with time. The name/numbers assigned come from a
numbering system created by a scholar named Caspar R. Gregory (1846-1917). These numbers are assigned once a discovery
is made by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung
(Institute for NT Textual Research) in Münster, Germany.

How many papyri do we now have? The Nestle-Aland 28th edition of
the Greek New Testament lists the papyri through p127 (including the date,
library location, and content). The estimated dates for these works range from
the second to the eighth centuries, with most dating to the third and fourth centuries. Some contain only a single verse or fragment
of a verse (e.g., p12 contains Hebrews 1:1).
More commonly, they consist of several verses (e.g., p98 has Revelation
1:13-20). Others, however, more rarely,
preserve the text of entire books (e.g., p72, as discussed below, has most of
1-2 Peter and Jude). For comparison, the
NA 27th edition (1993) listed papyri through p98 and the NA 26th edition
(1979) through p92. Clearly, the number in
the handbook has grown over time as further discoveries have been made. Cf.:

By 1898

5 papyri

By 1930

42 papyri

By 1979 (NA 26)

92 papyri

By 1993 (NA 27)

98 papyri

By 2013 (NA 28)

127 papyri

Second, I want to
clarify some confusion about the significance of the papyri:

I already noted that we must be clear that the modern
critical Greek NT was based on uncials not papyri. In fact, Eldon Jay Epp in a 1974 JBL article
once famously called the twentieth century a mere “interlude” in NT textual
criticism since so little had been changed or developed in the consensus regarding
the modern critical text since WH in the nineteenth century.

More importantly, it is often falsely assumed that the papyri
finds only reinforced WH and the modern critical text. In fact, the opposite is true. If WH were right one would have expected the
papyri consistently to reflect the so-called “Neutral text” of Codex B. Instead, scholars find that the papyri
reflect a “mixed text.” They include so-called
Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean readings, and, this is the shocking part,
the papyri also include Byzantine readings!

The book to read here is one by Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament
Textual Criticism (Thomas Nelson, 1984).
This book includes an Appendix which lists 150 papyri passages that
reflect a Byzantine reading. Sturz notes
that WH’s claim that the Byzantine text could not be found earlier than the
third century “vanished into thin air in the presence of the papyri” (p. 63).

Third, I want to offer
some reasons why this find is probably not as significant as some might
suppose:

First, we do not know anything about the length of this
fragment or which part of Mark it comes from. It is probably only a verse or
two at most. It would be great if it came from Mark 16:9-20!

Second, we do not know whether or not it comes from an
orthodox source. If it only consists of
a verse or two (or maybe even part of a single verse), how do we know for sure
that it comes from canonical Mark? It
could come from a Gnostic document that quotes Mark. The orthodoxy and the canonical integrity of
the papyri are suspect. P72, for example, includes 1-2 Peter and Jude but it
also includes: The Nativity of Mary,
Apocryphal Correspondence of Paul and the Corinthians, the eleventh Ode of
Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a hymn fragment, the Apology of
Phileas, and a Greek version of Pss 33 and 34.

Third, the dating of papyri is notoriously difficult and can
be subjective. Example: For a long time, most scholars have argued
that the oldest NT text is p52, the John Rylands Fragment, which contains a
fragment from the Fourth Gospel [John 18:31-33, 37-38]. A 2005 article by Brent Nonglobri titled “The
Use and Absue of p52: Papyrological
Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel” [HTR 98 1 (2005): 23-48],
however, pointedly challenges the early dating of p52. A
recent post on the Evangelical Text Criticism blog by Dirk Jongkind has
suggested that the oldest NT papyri may, in fact, be p104’s fragment of Matthew
21:34-37, 43-45? (he also points out, coincidentally, that 104 is twice
52!). Regarding the dating of this supposed
Mark fragment, see this
post by P. J. Williamson in which he states, contrary to claims by Evans
and Dan Wallace, that this fragment could not possibly be precisely dated to 80
AD! See also his comments about the
ethics of destroying mummy masks!

Fourth, most importantly, this report illustrates the
pitfalls of chasing manuscripts to attempt to prove or disprove the validity
and historicity of Scripture. The Lord
did not allow the autographs to be preserved.
Finding scraps of papyri will not prove or disprove the authority or
antiquity of the Bible to skeptics. In 2012
Dan Wallace apparently claimed that this find could be as significant as the Dead
Sea Scrolls discovery, to which Bart Ehrman responded: “He is wrong about that. In fact, if it is just a scrap, as it appears
to be, then it probably will not change a single, solitary thing in the entire
field of NT textual criticism.” I have
to agree here with Ehrman. Confessional
Christianity teaches that God providentially preserved his word in the faithful
copies that were made and used by God’s people.
That is not to say there is not a place for scholarly study and for the
collection of papyri for historical study, but let’s not make overstatements
and false claims about what such finds can actually establish. We know we have the word not because of
papyri witnesses but because of the providentially preserved text’s own
self-authenticating power.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Note: Praise God for a unified and very encouraging
Annual Church Conference last Sunday at CRBC (1.18.15)!After looking back over the past year, we
looked forward with anticipation to some of the following upcoming ministry goals
and events in 2015:

Saturday, January 17, 2015

A friend sent me a link to this
article in The Telegraph in which author Philip Pullman bemoans the fact
that with the rise of modern translations children are no long brought under the literary influence of the venerable King James Version. He also laments the loss of the old Book of
Common Prayer. The article is drawn from
this BBC interview of
Pullman with Michael Rosen. Here’s an
excerpt:

Speaking of the demise of the King James Bible and the
Book of Common Prayer, the author said: “I do regret that children don’t have
this experience of language which is grand and stately, and above their heads
if you like.

“Because it gave me an immense amount of pleasure to hear
the cadences and rhythms of these great prayers.

“I whisper along with them at times, just for the
enjoyment of the words, and it’s something I wouldn’t be without. If it was cut
out of me I’d miss it terribly.

“How can we give children that sense these days when they
seldom see a King James Bible, they go to churches – if they go to church at
all -where there’s a modern service book whose language is rather flat and
dull?”

Pullman is President of an organization called the Society
of Authors and he is best for the His
Dark Materials trilogy of fantasy novels.
The interesting thing is that Pullman’s novels have been criticized
as a negative presentation of religion in general and of Christianity in
particular. Why then does he laud the
influence of the KJV? He recognizes its
literary superiority.

The interview reminded me of the chapter on “Acclaim for
the King James Bible By the Literary Establishment” in Leland Ryken’s The Legacy of the King James Bible (see my
review of this book here) in which Ryken notes:

It will come as no surprise that English and American
authors as well as literary critics, prefer the King James Version. I suspect,
though, that the vehemence with which they prefer the KJV will come as a mild
shock. The problem that I faced in composing this chapter was avoiding
overkill. I have accordingly kept the chapter brief. I will note in passing
that I do not remember ever having encountered a member of the literary establishment
who preferred any English Bible other than the KJV (p. 160).

It seems that that the KJV is praised as passionately in the
English department as it is cried down in the Religion department.

On January 15, 2015
NPR posted an article concerning another book in this genre that I did not
mention in my article: The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven(Tyndale, 2010). See also this
Washington Post article. The twist
here is that the young man, Alex Malarkey (yep, I know, ironic name given the
story), upon whose experience the book was supposedly based and who is listed
as the co-author of the book along with His father, Kevin Malarkey (the author’s
blurb identifies Mr. Malarkey as a “Christian therapist with a counseling
practice hear Columbus, Ohio”), has now issued a recantation of his story and a rebuke of the
retailers who continue to promote and profit from the book. The NPR article reports on a written statement
from Alex:

"I did not die. I did not go to Heaven,"
Alex wrote. He continued, "I said I went to heaven because I thought it
would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the
Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the
Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written
by man cannot be infallible."

He concluded, "Those who
market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as
enough."

This statement
certainly took a lot of courage for this young man to make. It also sounds like someone has pointed out
to him how his book challenges and is in conflict with the authority of
Scripture. Among the distributors of the
book directly mentioned are LifeWay, the publishing arm of the supposedly
conservative SBC. Sadly, the article
also points out that somewhere behind the conflict is a disruption in the
Malarkey family:

Alex's parents are
now divorced; he and his siblings live with his mother, Beth Malarkey, who has
previously spoken out against the book featuring her son. She has also said
that profits from the book haven't been going to Alex. Another book about a boy
who said he had gone to heaven,Heaven Is For Real, has been
turned into a movie.

Last
spring, Beth Malarkeywrote
a blog poststating,
"Alex's name and identity are being used against his wishes (I have spoken
before and posted about it that Alex has tried to publicly speak out against
the book), on something that he is opposed to and knows to be in error
according to the Bible."

Maybe
this controversy will help open the eyes of those duped by the errors promoted
in these “Christian” near death memoirs.
As Father Abraham told the rich man in Hades: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Image: This picture
appeared in the email sent out by The Family Foundation of Virginia concerning
the Goochland meeting. A small group
listens to a livestream of the meeting from CRBC's Doug G.'s phone out in the
overflow hallway.

Note: This article appeared as a prayer update in the 1.15.15 Vision:

There was an incredible
outpouring of visible support for the Pruiett family and opposition to policy
change on religious exemption homeschooling at the Goochland County School
Board Meeting on Tuesday evening (1.13.15). A number of CRBCers were present and Brian
O. and Michelle B. represented us well by speaking during the
session. As a result the board voted to
amend the policy. You can read about
the outcome in this Fox News article and in this Richmond Times-Dispatch article.

Here also is a note
that Doug Pruiett sent out the day after the meeting:

Dear Family &
Friends:

FIRST, to those of you who came to the meeting in support,
THANK YOU for being used of God. Those who could not come but who were
praying for us, it was evident that God was moving through your prayers.
God bless all.

The meeting was standing room only in the main board room,
three overflow rooms filled, and the hallway full of people, hundreds in
attendance. There were thirty people who spoke, only two of which were
for the policy. Those two people showed open hostility to home schoolers
and religious people and were not very gracious. The remaining speakers
ALL had powerful points, just amazingly powerful as God clearly moved.

After three hours of public comments, the board voted 4-1 to
repeal the offensive policy and replace with a very simple one (that was
acceptable to the crowd). The new policy removes the need for child
affidavits, no mention of application, no renewals, no interviews, just a
statement from the parents saying on behalf of themselves and their children,
they attest to the religious training being done.

It was amazing how God brought people from near (many) and
far to this meeting. Just an absolute blessing. HSLDA, HEAV, the
Family Foundation, and other home school organizations were there.
Lawyers, mothers, fathers, young adults, children, all spoke. Also, to
add frosting, they voted to suspend enforcement action on current folks like us
until the “second reading.” The singular motion to repeal and replace
must go to a “second reading” and before the whole crowd we got the board
members to vow that they would vote the same way on the second reading.
HSLDA may provide some input on slight tweaks to the new policy.

There were TV cameras rolling from a couple stations.

God absolutely amazed us through this process, local news coverage,
national news coverage, hundreds of people coming out, anointed speakers, and
touched hearts on the board. To GOD alone be the glory forever!

Note: A few weeks ago I gave a Sunday
School message on the sixth petition in the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from evil (Matt 6:13). At the time I
made mention of a 2010
message I did on the same topic in which I made use of Thomas Watson’s
peerless study of the Lord prayer in which the Puritan father lists no less
than 27 of Satan’s subtleties in tempting men to sin (see Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer [original 1692; Banner
of Truth, 2009]: pp. 262-282). Here are my notes from that 2010 sermon in
which I summarized and adapted Watson’s list.
In this list it is as though he had discovered Satan’s playbook. Here are some of Satan’s strategies noted by
Watson:

1. He knows our
natural temper and constitution.

As a farmer knows the proper seed to plant, Satan knows
just the right temptations to sow in our hearts. “Satan tempts the ambitious man with a crown,
the sanguine [passionate] man with beauty, the covetous man with a wedge of
gold.”

2. He chooses the
fittest seasons to tempt in. Watson lists
six such seasons:

First, in our first initiation and entrance into
religion. He attacks most sharply at the
first signs of conversion.

Second, when he finds us unemployed [not meaning here
without a job but without spiritual employment]. The hunter shoots the bird that sits still,
so Satan aims at the man who is not active in spiritual life.

Third, when a person is reduced to outward wants and
straits. He hits us when we are on hard
times and hungry. Esau traded his
birthright for a bowl of stew. Satan
came at Jesus after he fasted for 40 days.

Fourth, after an ordinance. After hearing a sermon or a baptism or the
Lord’s Supper.

Fifth, after some discovery of God’s love. As a pirate likes to attack a ship laden with
treasure, so Satan seeks to rob us at just the times when we are full of joy.

Sixth, when he sees us at our weakest. He likes to break over the hedge at the
lowest point. This often comes on two
occasions: (1) when we are alone; this
was when Satan approached Eve in the Garden; and (2) when the hour of death
approaches. Like a crow, Satan likes to
peck at the weak saint on his deathbed with temptation. He tells the saint he is a hypocrite. Like a coward, he strikes us while we are
down.

3. He often baits his
hook with religion.

He sometimes tempts men into sinful and unwarrantable
actions by making them think that they are honoring God all the more.

4. He tempts to sin
gradually.

He tempts first to lesser sins, that he may bring on
greater. Think of the addict who begins
with drinking and moves on to “recreational drugs” and then moves on to hard
drugs.

5. His policy is to
hand us over to temptations by those we least suspect.

He can use friends, family members, even religious
friends to ensnare and entice.

6.Satan
tempts some persons more than others.

He “tempts most where he thinks his policies will most
easily prevail.”

Five types of persons that Satan works on most often:

First, Ignorant persons.

Second, unbelievers.

Third, proud persons.

Fourth, melancholy persons. He works on those who have a discontented
spirit.

Fifth, idle persons.
“The devil will find work for the idle to do…. If the hands be not working good, the heart
will be plotting evil.”

7. Satan might give
some respite but he does not completely go away.

He lulls us into complacency. Just as a man who wants to scale a wall has
to run back a bit to make a greater jump, sometimes when he is quiet he is just
preparing for a more bold attack. Thus,
we must always be watchful.

8. He either tries to
make men leave off the means of grace or to miscarry them.

He tells men that they are not worthy and that they are
not making any progress to discourage them and make them stop.

Or he causes them to miscarry by being distracted or
slipping into formalism or pride (doing acts of piety to be seen by men—see
Matthew 6).

9. Satan can color
over sin with the name and pretense of virtue.

“He can cheat men with false wares; he can make them
believe that presumption is faith, that intemperate passion is zeal, revenge is
prudence, covetousness is frugality, and prodigality is good hospitality.”

10.He
labors to ensnare us by lawful things.

Example:
“Relations are lawful, but how often does Satan tempt us to
overlove! How often is the wife and
child laid in God’s room! Excess makes
things lawful become sinful.”

11.He jostles our
callings (to vocation and Christian service).

So, some spend all their time in spiritual activity “and
under a pretense of living by faith, do not live in a calling.” “Others, Satan takes off from duties of
religion, under a pretense that they must provide for their families; he makes
them so careful for their bodies that they quite neglect their souls.”

12.He misrepresents
true holiness so as to make others fall out of love with it.

He tries to make religion seem like a most melancholy
thing. He tries to make holy men seem
like dour, unhappy, kill-joys. He
“paints holiness with a deformed and mis-shapen face as he can.”

13.Satan
draws men off from the love of the truth to embrace error.

He comes as an angel of light. He loves to spread error. He glories in division in the church. “The devil dances at discord.” His “policy in raising errors is to hinder
reformation. He was never a friend to reformation.”

“Satan tempts to error, because error devours godliness.”

14.Satan bewitches
and ensnares men by setting pleasing baits before them.

“The pleasures of the world are the great engine by which
Satan batters down men’s souls. His
policy is to tickle them to death, to damn them with delights.”

15.Satan in tempting
pleads necessity.

He tells us that our case is extreme and thus he entices
us to justify ungodly behavior.

16.Satan
draws men to presumption.

He makes men think, I can do this and God will forgive
me. At one point in his book, Watson says
there is a difference between a soldier who is taken captive while actively
fighting and resisting and one who willfully defects to the other side or who
acts a traitor.

17.Satan often comes
under the highest pretenses of friendship.

He comes as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He makes us think that the wrong he tempts us
to do is for our good.

18.Satan persuades
men to keep his counsel.

That is, he would rather we conceal and hide our sin
rather than deal openly with it.

19.He
“makes use of such persons as may be the most likely means to promote his
designs.”

He can use men of renowned and seeming dignity and
authority. “He carries on his designs by
men of wit and parts, such as, if it were possible, should deceive the very
elect.” He also makes use of bad
company. He uses men high and low.

20.He
strikes at some graces more than other; and he aims at some persons more than
others.

Watson says the thing he attacks most is faith. He knows he cannot take away our faith but if
he can disturb it he can rob us our peace, comfort, and joy in Christ. By this he can also make us lame and invalid
in the other graces.

21.He encourages doctrines that are
flesh-pleasing.

He “tells man there is no need for strictness; nor so much
zeal and violence; a softer pace will serve.”

22.His policy is either to hinder us from duty, to discourage us in our
duty, or to put us too far in duty.

He does not want us to meditate on the Word, to mortify sin,
or to engage in self-examination.

He discourages us by telling us we are hypocrites.

He takes us too far.
Not only do we wade into the waters of repentance but we are drowned in
the gulf of despair.

23.He tempts to sin also by urging a “speedy repentance.”

He makes us think long-standing habitual sins can be easily
or quickly overcome and we fall right back into them after brief victories.

24.He puts us upon doing good things but unseasonably.

Watson gives the example of a man who stayed home to read the
Bible, but in so doing he missed the gathering of the church to hear preaching
and teaching and to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

Likewise, I knew a man who would come to mid-week meeting and
read his Bible in a room but not join with the gathered church in study and
prayer, and a man who did not attend the evening services of a church where he
was a member because he was doing family devotions.

25.Satan persuades men to delay repentance and turning to God.

“Many now in hell purposed to repent, but death surprised
them.”

26.Satan assaults and weakens the saints’ peace.

If he cannot keep them from heaven, he will try to keep them
from heaven upon earth.

27.He even tempts men through plausible arguments
“to make away with themselves” (take their own lives).

Watson concludes his list of these 27 subtleties by noting
that once there was a story of a plot against the life of the Reformer Martin
Luther. It was learned that a man wanted
to poison him, but a friend sent to Luther a picture of his would-be assassin
so that he might recognize him when he saw him.
In these 27 traits, Watson says, “I have shown you the picture of him
that would murder you. Being forewarned,
I beseech you take heed of the murderer.”